New Evidence: Shroud of Turin Older Than Thought

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by St Leo
Out of curiosity, what exactly is meant by the "sins of the world"? Is it "guilt"? Most sins aren't especially unpleasant on their own.

All sins have consequences. All sins hurt the sinner and/or someone else wether one realizes it or not.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


But the real question is, are there any records in history of anyone suffering a death that was more horrifying than the death of Christ, especially execution records?

Of course, wether Christ really suffered more than any other person in history is a matter of opinion.

Records? You know, I would have to guess yes even without knowing about it. Are there records of the death of Jesus?

Opinions are easily influenced by graphic emotional "art" it seems.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by St Leo
To rephrase Oncle's point, the preaching of love was not what he was crucified for.

Right. He was crucified for proclaiming to be the King of the Jews, which according to Jewish law is blasphemy, for which the punishment was death.

[Heresson]

The skeptics were yet sure that the cloth can not be original, that it is younger than Jesus.
As the tradition is that it is the shroud of Jesus,
and there's nothing yet that can be put against it,
You should believe it. And as the shroud is supernatural...

And again: it's not important if Jesus' death was the worse of deaths. It's about a comparison of his personality and the faith He had to face. And that He and Father sacrificed Him for the salvation of us all.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Are there records of the death of Jesus?

Yes, the Gospels themselves are eyewitness accounts of the birth, life, death and ressurection of Christ.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


Yes, the Gospels themselves are eyewitness accounts of the birth, life, death and ressurection of Christ.

I don't think we have the same definition of records. I'm not talking about vinyl here.

[lightblue]

If you believe that they weren't brushed up and exaggerated since...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Wasn't there a lot of cloth around any given year back some thousands of years ago? You know, for people to cover themselves? Just find a piece that is 2k year old and say it's his.

Traditional Jews wear a large 4 cornered, fringed, piece of cloth called a tallit (tallis in the ashkenazic pronunciation) while praying. It is often of linen, though it need not be. Traditionally the full sized one was worn only by married men. Among Conservative Jews all adult Jews may wear them. Adolescent boys (and in Conservative Synagogues today, girls) wear small prayer shawls, also called tallit. Since they dont wear them before Bar Mitzvah, its traditionally presented on that occasion. Hand made, and silk ones are often given on this special occasion.

Another ritual garment is a large white robe called a kittel worn by men on Yom Kippur and on their wedding. Its traditional to be buried in it.

Im not sure the age of either of these traditions, but the reference to wearing a fringed garment goes back to the laws of Moses.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Indeed.

Of course, it is perfectly possible the cloth itself was made in ancient times. That doesn't tell us when the image that appears was put on the cloth. How hard would it have been for someone to break into an old tomb, steal a burial shroud and then put an image on it? At the time the shroud appeared in Europe, there was a "relic mania" going on where merchants were selling purported pieces of the cross, shrouds, bones, etc. At one point, according to church documents, there were at least a dozen purported shrouds making the rounds on the continent, enough pieces of the "true cross" to make a cabin and enough bones of disciples to make an army of giants.

My understanding of the Turin shroud was that it was genuine and not just 'an image', in the sense that someone was murdered and wrapped in the cloth in the manner described in the bible. That is not to say its Jesus or anyone from his time period, the murder likely happened in the 13-14th century and the shroud was designed to be the 'ultimate' relic as it would be as close to authentic as possible.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by lightblue
If you believe that they weren't brushed up and exaggerated since...

Nice conspiracy theory, but no dice cumberbund.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Dauphin


My understanding of the Turin shroud was that it was genuine and not just 'an image', in the sense that someone was murdered and wrapped in the cloth in the manner described in the bible. That is not to say its Jesus or anyone from his time period, the murder likely happened in the 13-14th century and the shroud was designed to be the 'ultimate' relic as it would be as close to authentic as possible.

Eh eh um. Have you completly missed the story about the new evidence found that I posted in the first post of this thread?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by St Leo
Out of curiosity, what exactly is meant by the "sins of the world"? Is it "guilt"? Most sins aren't especially unpleasant on their own.

no

sin seperates you from God, spiritually

sins of the world is all the sin, the seperation, of humanity from it's God

so Christ had all the sin, the spiritual seperation, that all of humanity (from the relatively benign Mother Terresa to Adolph Hitler) has ever or will ever experience (guilt probably relates to feeling bad over this spiritual seperation)

now most of us, are to some degree or another, dulled to the feeling of seperation from God, because we have never been close to Him

Christ was, however, was in constant communication with God (prayed all the time, so on and so forth)

so that was really terrible

I am not very good at communication, I am sorry

basically there is spiritual pain, just like there is emotional pain and physical pain (and maybe even mental pain which you can get from watching the simple life possibly)

this idea is not found only in Christianity, but it is key to Christianity

Jon Miller

[GePap]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


Yes, the Gospels themselves are eyewitness accounts of the birth, life, death and ressurection of Christ.

Ah, no, they were all writen about 60-70 years after his supposed death- if they were eye witness accounts by contemporaries, they should not be so different and vary on basic facts.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


Yes, the Gospels themselves are eyewitness accounts of the birth, life, death and ressurection of Christ.

actually most gospels (except John) don't claim to be eyewitness to anything

and even John only claims to be an eyewitness to some of the life and death of Christ

What the Gospels seem to claim is that they are relating the story as taken from eyewitnesses (and within a couple steps is what most scholars think)

so pretty close, close enough for me

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


Ah, no, they were all writen about 60-70 years after his supposed death- if they were eye witness accounts by contemporaries, they should not be so different and vary on basic facts.

closer to 30-60, I think (we know that the oldest it could be is ~80 years after)

but yah, when the people who would remember Christ were getting really old (and many had died)

Jon Miller